WORLD COURT SUPPORTS NICARAGUA AFTER U.S. REJECTED JUDGES' ROLE

This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996.
To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.

Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems.
Please send reports of such problems to archive_feedback@nytimes.com.

The International Court of Justice ruled today that the Reagan Administration had broken international law and violated Nicaraguan sovereignty by aiding the anti-Government rebels.

The Court, the judicial arm of the United Nations, ordered Washington to halt the ''arming and training'' of the insurgents and to pay Nicaragua for damages caused by military attacks, some of which it said had been carried out by the United States itself.

The judgment, which was widely expected, came after 26 months of litigation on Nicaragua's complaint. U.S. Rejects the Verdict

In Washington, a State Department spokesman said the United States rejected the Court's verdict, and said the body was ''not equipped'' to judge complex international military issues. The American spokesman added that ''we consider our policy in Central America to be entirely consistent with international law.'' [ Page 4. ] In January 1985 the Administration said it would defy the Court and ignore further proceedings in the case because of its view that the World Court, as it is commonly called, has no jurisdiction to decide cases involving ongoing armed conflicts. The Court rejected this position last November.

Throughout the case, the argument that the United States was giving military aid to the contras was never in serious dispute. However, before Washington formally withdrew from the case, it argued that United States actions against Nicaragua were ''collective self-defense'' against Nicaraguan support of leftist guerrillas in El Salvador and elsewhere.

The Court's findings were announced two days after the House of Representatives endorsed President Reagan's plan to provide $100 million in new aid to the rebels, with $70 million earmarked for military assistance. Three Dissenters

The World Court consists of 15 judges: one, the chief judge, from India; two from France, and one each from Poland, Argentina, Nigeria, Italy, Brazil, Senegal, Algeria, China, Norway, Japan, the United States and Britain. The American, British and Japanese judges dissented on the most important issues in the case.

The Court deferred a ruling on Nicaragua's petition for $370 million in damages from the United States, saying it wished to give the two countries a chance to negotiate a settlement themselves. However, the Court said it would step in if no accord materialized.

Abram Chayes, a counsel for the Managua Government, said in Washington today that as a result of the ruling, Nicaragua intends to sue the United States for more than $1 billion in damages in United States courts. In New York, Nora Astorga, Nicaragua's chief envoy to the United Nations, said her Government had asked for a Security Council meeting to discuss how to make the United States comply with the ruling.

The Court has no enforcement powers. It depends on voluntary compliance with its rulings by nations coming before it. #15 Counts Against U.S.

The Court ruled against the United States on 15 counts.

The Court found the United States violated customary international law and Nicaragua's sovereignty by ''training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces.'' It also found the United States guilty of direct attacks on Nicaraguan oil installations, ports and shipping in 1983 and 1984.

It held that the United States broke international law by authorizing overflights of Nicaraguan territory and by mining Nicaraguan ports and harbors in 1984. The Court also ruled that the United States trade embargo against Nicaragua, decreed in May 1985, violates a 1956 treaty of friendship between the two countries.

The Court also condemned the United States for allowing distribution of a Central Intelligence Agency manual on guerrilla warfare techniques to the contras, saying it encourages ''acts contrary to the general principles of humanitarian law.''

A majority of judges rejected the American claim that it was acting in the ''collective self-defense'' of El Salvador, Costa Rica and Honduras because Nicaragua was supporting rebel movements in these countries.

The Court said Nicaraguan aid to rebels in El Salvador was mainly in 1980 and 1981, before the United States stepped up its assistance to the contras, and did not constitute an ''armed attack'' on these countries under international law. As a result, the United States' response was judged disproportionate and unnecessary.

The Court said the United States was responsible in a general way for damage caused by the contras but not for specific acts by the rebels since it does not control them.

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

It also said the United States has no right to seek the overthrow of the Nicaraguan Government because of its political ideology. But to the surprise of some lawyers, it then added that this doctrine does not apply to ''the process of decolonization,'' suggesting that wars of national liberation may be justified in international law. Nicaraguan Leader Comments

The Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, the Rev. Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, said he hoped the United States Congress would now agree to stop new aid going to the contras. ''We want the U.S. to comply with the ruling so that there will be no more killing of our people,'' he told a news conference here.

If the United States fails to respect the judgment, Father D'Escoto said, its ''reputation as a member of the international community will be tarnished, perhaps irreparably.''

The Foreign Minister said he would discuss the verdict with the United Nations Secretary General, Javier Perez de Cuellar, in New York next week before returning to Nicaragua for talks with the other leaders of the Government on their next move in the dispute.

Although the World Court lacks the means to enforce its judgments, diplomats here say Nicaragua can still use today's ruling to cause the United States some diplomatic embarrassment. This could first occur in a demand that the Security Council authorize sanctions against the United States if it fails to comply. The United States would then be forced to exercise its Security Council veto to block the Nicaraguan resolution. Charges of Bias in Court

The United States walked out of the Court proceedings last year, saying they were biased in favor of Nicaragua.

In announcing that it did not recognize the Court's jurisdiction in January 1985, the Reagan Administration noted that the Soviet Union and most other nations had never assented to the World Court's jurisdiction, as the United States did in 1946.

But the World Court proceeded with the Nicaragua case, in accordance with its rules, as it did when Iran refused to recognize its jurisdiction in the United States' suit over the seizure in 1979 of American diplomats in Teheran as hostages. The Court ruled for the United States in that case.

The Nicaraguan case is widely seen by legal scholars as the most politically sensitive the World Court has ever adjudicated as well as representing its first involvement in an international conflict that is still under way.

The Court's verdict on most key issues was challenged by Judge Stephen M. Schwebel of the United States, Sir Robert Jennings, the British judge, and Judge Shigeru Oda of Japan. A Jurisdictional Challenge

The dissenting judges first challenged the Court's competence to hear the case. The issue was whether the Court could hear the case since the United States specifically refused it authority in 1946 over cases brought under international treaties. Nicaragua claims the United States violated its international obligations under the United Nations and Organization of American States charters.

A majority of judges said this restriction applies but argued that the principles of noninterference in other countries' affairs and respect for national sovereignty, which are enshrined in the United Nations charter, have now become part of the wider body of customary international law.

The Court, the majority ruled, is therefore competent to judge.

Judge Oda argued that the dispute was not ''legal'' but ''political'' and is ''more suitable for resolution by other organs and procedures.'' Lawyers said this suggested that Judge Oda believed the dispute should be judged by the Security Council.

Judge Schwebel's dissent emphasized that the Court had underestimated the gravity of the Nicaraguan Government's involvement in El Salvador.

''Nicaragua has not come to court with clean hands,'' Judge Schwebel said. ''On the contrary, as an aggressor, indirectly responsible - but ultimately responsible - for large numbers of deaths and widespread destruction in El Salvador, apparently much exceeding that which Nicaragua has sustained, Nicaragua's hands are odiously unclean. Nicaragua has compounded its sins by misrepresenting them in court.''

A version of this article appears in print on June 28, 1986, on Page 1001001 of the National edition with the headline: WORLD COURT SUPPORTS NICARAGUA AFTER U.S. REJECTED JUDGES' ROLE. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe